
fa 




/ 






Religious History 
of Maryland. 



mwm SOT A ROMlbCAiyOLIC COLON!, 

Religious Toleration not an Act of Roman Catholic 

Legislation. 



The Substance of a Lecture delivered before the Guild of 
"Alt aints Church," Baltimore, 

* f BY THE 

REV. B. F. BROWN, 



L 



Auil riihlishedby Request. 



•• / 



() 




. i OF Cd/v^ 

U. S, A 



I! A L T I M O R E : 

INNES &. CO., BOOK PRINTERS. 
1876. 



.381 



Maryland Never a Roman Catholic Colony. 



The perversions of history which come before us with all the 
assurance of truth, are both hurtful and difticult of correction. 
They mislead successive generations, deceiving their judgment and 
shaping their action. Tradition and myth form a large part of 
what men call history; and human selfishness, credulity, and preju- 
dice, transmute them into the solidity of well-accredited facts. 

No sphere of human thought is so prolific of such misleading as 
the religious history of individuals and nations. Often the opinion 
of many generations respecting some historical character or action 
is utterly away from the truth ; because ignorance or prejudice has 
misstated the facts of the case ; and most persons are content to 
accept the current view, without questioning its accuracy. In this 
way history is manufactured from falsehood or fancy, while frequent 
and confident repetition of the same lie will often silence the timid 
remonstrant, and confirm in error the doubtful questioner. 

The good people of Maryland, in common with a large part of our 
whole nation, and thinking people everywhere, have been accus- 
tomed to receive, as an unquestionable fact, an assertion respecting 
the early history of Maryland, its settlement and government, which 
has no foundation in point of fact; yet has been used to mislead the 
ignorant, and silence the honest inquirer after truth. The error in 
question has been incorporated into our school-books, asserted in 
our newspapers, reiterated by politicians, in the interest of partisan 
discussion, and preached from pulpit and rostrum, until nearly our 
whole people give it credence, and regard the man who would call it 
in question as either wanting in knowledge, or blinded by prejudice. 
Every intelligent person who has passed the age of childhood has, 
in some form, met the statement that our good old State of Mary- 
land was first settled by Roman Catholics, and that on her soil, 
under the government of a Roman Catholic Proprietor, and by the 
free act of a Roman Catholic Legislature, the grand principle of 



4 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

freedom to religious opinion and worship was first enunciated. In 
different forms of statement, embellished by all the arts of the 
rhetorician, and enforced by the cunning of the politician and the 
zeal of the propagandist, this dream of the imagination has been 
put forth as fact, to refute the charge of intolerance which all 
history sustains against the Roman religion, and to show that 
intolerance and persecution are not essenticd attributes of a govern- 
ment loyal to the Papacy. My present purpose is to present the 
facts of our colonial history, and elucidate their bearing upon this 
great question. 

There is just enough of the semblance of truth in the popular 
idea of our colonial origin to make the deception of those who will 
not, or cannot, study the real facts in the case, complete. We pro- 
pose to develop these facts, in such forms as will show that there is 
not the first element of truth in the claim, that a Roman Catholic 
Proprietor, and a Roman Catholic Legislature, of their own will and 
generosity, made a law giving liberty and equality to all, for the 
exercise of their religious opinions and worship, and protecting 
them in the same. This is the substance of the popular statement 
of the matter ; otherwise it would have no force as an argument 
and illustration in the discussion between Romanists and Protes- 
tants ; and on the question of the safety of religious liberty in our 
country, in the event of a Roman Catholic majority, throwing the 
control of the Grovernment into their hands. 

To make good the popular view relative to the policy of religious 
toleration which characterized Lord Baltimore's administration, it 
must be proven, j^rs^, that he had the legal right under his charter, 
and under the laws of England, to restrict or exclude the Protestant 
religion and worship, and make his own faith and church — the 
Roman Catholic — the sole religion of the colony. Unless Lord 
Baltimore had this power, both under the general laws of England 
and by the privileges of his charter, the whole claim of a broad 
and tolerant policy for Baltimore and his Catholic Legislature falls 
to the ground. 

I assert that Lord Baltimore had no such power conferred by his 
charter ; nor had the King of England, who gave him the charter, 
any right or power to vest him with such a prerogative, even had 
he designed to do so. Lord Baltimore did not exclude Protestants 
from his Maryland colony, restrict them in the exercise of their re- 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 5 

ligion, nor set up a Roman Catholic establishment. He did 
neither one nor the other, hecause he had neither the right nor the 
power to do so. If I can make good this position, then the boasted 
Toleration Act proves nothing for the purpose to which it is con- 
tinually alleged, and the claim appears as an unfounded assump- 
tion. No one, I presume, will question that England was, at the 
time, a Protestant nation, and that the Protestant religion was 
established by law, to the entire exclusion of the Roman worship. 
Wc are to look at the constitution and laws of England to enable 
us to interpret Lord Baltimore's charter correctly. Here we shall 
find what this charter, from an English king sworn to support 
the laws and institutions of the nation, gave Baltimore authority 
to do. and also what, under the English law, he had no authority 
to do. 

When an English King or an English Parliament, in legal acts 
or language, speaks of Holy Church and of the True Christian Re- 
ligion, the sense is clear, as meaning the church and religion estab- 
lished and protected by the law of the land. Such allusions mean 
neither Romanism on the one side; nor Protestant Dissent on the 
other. At the very time when Lord Baltimore obtained his Mary- 
land charter, the law of England opposed, and sought to repress, 
both Roman and Protestant dissent; while it protected and sought 
to extend the faith and worship of the Established Church throuo-h 
all the English dominion at home and abroad. Holy Church and u 
the True Christian Religion could not mean the Roman Catholic 
Church : for against it the law and government protested. The 
great mass of the English nation rejected the Roman religion ; and 
so keenly alive were both Parliament and people to the memory of 
the Smithfield fires of the Bloody Mary and the Papal Bishops, 
that they sought to guard against the recurrence of such a danger, 
by a rigorous exclusion of all Roman clergy from the kingdom of 
England. The English people had not forgotten that only seventy- 
three years before, Pope Paul the Fourth forbade Elizabeth to ascend 
the throne of England until she submitted her pretensions to him, 
and declared England to be a fief of the Apostolic See. They still 
remembered that Pius the Fifth, eleven years later, issued a bull 
against Elizabeth when she had been eleven years England's 
glorious Queen, declaring her a "pretended Queen of England," 
absolving all her subjects from allegiance to her, and cursing all 
who adhered to her as excommunicate heretics. Only fifty years 



6 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

before, the ''invincible" Armada of Spain, with the blessing of the 
Pope, hovered around the shores of England, commissioned by the 
Pastor Pastorum to convert by the gentle appliances of rack and 
stake the heretic English to the true faith, and win them back 
to the loving embrace of the Holy Father. Only thirty years before, 
the Gunpowder Plot sought to destroy the government by blowing 
up King, Lords and Commons, when assembled in Parliament. 
These events all conspired to beget in the English nation such an 
intense hatred to Roman Catholicism, as dangerous to the peace and 
liberty of tlie realm, that Parliament, under Elizabeth and James, 
passed severe repressive laws against the public exercise of the 
Roman Catholic religion, forbade the entrance of Romish priests 
within the kingdom, and compelled the English Romanist to attend 
the public worship of the English Church, under the penalty of 
twenty pounds per month. Such was the state of the public mind •- 
of the nation, and such were the laws of England, at the time Lord 
Baltimore obtained his charter for the territory of Maryland from 
King Charles. We mention these things not to approve them, but 
as showing the state of the English mind, and the laws of the realm, 
relative to the Roman Catholic Church ; and as proving beyond 
question our assertion, that under the English law, and by the 
terras of his charter. Lord Baltimore had neither right nor power 
to restrict the full liberty of the Protestant laith and worship of the 
realm of England, or to set up a Roman Catholic establishment, as 
the religion of his colony. 

We will now review the terms of the chaiter, and see how they 
accord with the position we have taken. The terms Catholic or 7 
Protestant do not occur in the charter ; nor anything equivalent to 
the narrower and more technical sense in which they are commonly 
used. But there are terras in the charter which, interpreted as they 
must be, in the sense of the constitution and laws of the realm, 
put the legal meaning of the charter, in all that pertains to ecclesias- 
tical matters, beyond question. The fourtli section of the charter 
provided that — 

" the patronages and advowsons of all churches which (with the increasing worship 
and religion of Christ) within the said region, islands, islets and limits aforesaid here- 
after shall happen to be built; together with license and faculty of erecting and 
founding cliurches, chapels and places of worship in convenient and suitable places 
within the premises, and of causing the same to be dedicated and consecrated accord- 
ing to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England." 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 7 

Now, the ecclesiastical laws of the kingdom of England made 
no provisions for the consecration of Romish or dissenting churches 
or chapels ; and when the charter speaks of churches and chapels to 
arise within the Maryland colony which are to be consecrated " ac- 
cording to the ecclesiastical laws of the kingdom of England," it is 
speaking in the sense of English law, and plainly means such 
churches and chapels as were provided for by the laws of the 
kingdom. We must not imagine so absurd a thing, as that the 
King of England would grant to a subject a charter investing him 
with the right to set up, in a distant province of the empire, a 
hostile religion, with exclusive power, whose very existence and 
worship were forbidden by the laws of England. The presentation 
to the churches of the Province was in the Proprietor; but with the 
restriction that every church within the province, if consecrated 
at all, was consecrated by the Bishop of London or his Commissary, 
according to the laws of the English Church. 

The tenth section of the charter provides and commands that the 
Province of Maryland, while given to Lord Baltimore, with unusually 
large and full proprietary rights, shall yet be ever regarded as a 
])art of the empire, owing allegiance to and under its protection. 
We quote in fall the explicit language of this section : 

" We will also, out of our abuudaut grace, for us, our heirs aud successors, do 
firmly charge, constitute, ordain aud command, that the said province be of our alle- 
giance ; and that all and singular the sutijects aud liege-men of us, our heirs aud suc- 
cessors, transplanted or hereafter to be transplanted, into the province aforesaid, and 
the children of them, and of others tiiclr descendants, whetlier already born there 
or hereafter to be born, be aud shall be liege-men of us, our heirs aud successors of 
our Kingdom of England and Ireland ; and in all things shall be held, treated, 
reputed aud esteemed as tlie faitliful licge-men of us, and our liciis and successors, 
born within our Kingdom of England; also lauds, tenements, revenues, services, aud 
other hereditaments whatsoever, wilhiu our Kingdom of England, and other our do- 
minions, to inherit, or otherwise purchase, receive, take, have, hold, buy aud possess, 
and the same to use and enjoy, and the same to give, sell, alien and bequeath ; and 
likewise all privileges, franchises, and liberties of this our Kingdom of England, 
freely, quietly, and peaceably to have and possess, and the same may use and enjoy 
in the same manner as our liege-men born, or to be born, within our said Kingdom 
of England, without impediment, molestation, vexation, impeachment, or grievance 
of us, or any of our heirs or su'icessois ; any statute, ordinance, or provision to the 
contrary thereof, notwithstanding." 

The ''privileges," "franchises" and ''liberties" of Englishmen 
were just such as the law gave them, no more, and no less. These 



8 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

"franchises" were ecclesiastical as well as civil, the former defined 
by the ecclesiastical laws of the kingdom, as were the civil rights 
of Englishmen by their civil laws. They were to be the same in 
the Province as in England. Even had the King designed to give 
special privileges and powers to Lord Baltimore, in favor of the 
Roman Catholics of the Province, and to the limitation of the 
" privileges " and "liberties" of the Protestant members of the 
English Church, such design was rendered null and void by the 
very language of the charter. For this tenth section says : All 
privileges, franchises and liberties were to be the same in the 
Province as to those subjects of the. Crown in England, " any 
statute, act, ordinance, or provision to the contrary thereof notwith- 
standing." 

The seventh section gives to Lord Baltimore very large powers of 
making and administering laws in and for the Province, but at the 
close of the section throws a restriction around his power, in these 
respects, which limits it within the constitution and laws of the 
kingdom of England. This limitation is expressed in the words — 

"so nevertheless that the laws aforesaid be consonant to reason, and be not repng- • 
naut or contrary, but (so fsir as reasonably may be) agreeable to the laws, statutes, 
customs and rights of this our Kingdom of England." 

There is one more clause of the charter to which we would call 
attention as sustaining all we have said respecting its meaning. 
The government of Charles the First was perhaps as thoroughly 
personal as a constitutional government could be. He loved his 
favorites, and stuck to them, even to desperate extremities ; and 
Lord Baltimore stood high in the personal affection of Charles. 
That affection influenced the King in the grant of a charter, whose 
requirements, binder tlie English law, Lord Baltimore, as a conscien- 
tious Roman Catholic, could never fully carry out. Henrietta 
Maria, the daughter of the King of France and wife of King 
Charles, was a Roman Catholic, and Lord Baltimore was a convert 
to that faith. These intimate relations blinded the judgment of 
the King, as to the full extent of the difficulty and contradiction 
which the grant of such a charter to such a man involved. To the 
mind of the King, who, with all his imperfections of character, 
was loyal at heart to the Reformed Church of England ; in the 
sense of the English law, the "true Christian religion" was that 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 9 

of the State and Church of England. In the mind and heart of 
Lord Baltimore, none but the Roman faith and obedience met that 
description. 

The last clause of the charter reveals both the warm personal 
affection of the King for Lord Baltimore, and, at the same time, his 
loyalty of heart to the faith and church of England. It seems 
indeed to imply an impression on the King's mind of future mis- 
understanding, as to the full meaning of the charter ; affecting Lord 
Baltimore's interest on the one side, and the integrity of the Church 
in the colony on the other. The last clause of the charter looks to 
both these, and gives the King's mind in respect to both. We 
give what is relative to the matter in full : 

"Aad if, pciud venture, hereafter it may liappea, that any doubts or questions 
sbould arise concerning the true sense and meaning of any word, clause or sentence 
contained in this our present Charter, we will charge and command that interpreta- 
tion lobe applied always and in all things, and in all our courts and judicatories 
whatsoever, to obtain which shall be judged to be the more beneficial, profitable and 
favorable to the aforesaid now Baron of Baltimore, his heirs and assigns ; provided 
always,i\\Vi.i no interpretation thereof be made whereby God's Holy and True Religion, 
or the allegiance due to us, or our heirs or successors, may in any wise sutfer by 
change, diminution or prejudice." 

The affection of Charles for Lord Baltimore prompted the grant 
of the charter ; his foresight of the possible attempt to build up a 
religion different and hostile to that of the nation, prompted this 
clause of that charter. The clause was well put in, when we 
remember that in the Papal judgment all religion outside of the 
Roman creed is heresy ; and all kings who do not obey the Pope are 
liable to be excommunicated and deposed. 

I think that I have now shown quite conclusively, from the state 
of the English nation, its laws relative to the Roman religion, and 
finally from the charter itself, that King Charles I. had no power 
or intention of conferring upon Lord Baltimore the prerogative to 
establish the Roman Catholic, and exclude or limit the reformed, 
religion from the Maryland colony. The claim, therefore, made for 
him is false, as a point of history ; and of no value to the cause in 
whose behalf it is paraded. I shall now attempt to show that all 
the circumstances in our early colonial history are against the 
assertion of Roman Catholic ascendancy in the colony, and that 
with such ascendancy. Lord Baltimore and a Roman Catholic Legis- 
lature granted toleration and equality to all Christians. 
2 



10 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

I said before that there is just enough of the semblance of truth 
in the fiction of Maryland's Catholicity, to mislead the popular 
raind. But, in reality, Maryland never was a Catholic colony. 
Her earliest settlement was Protestant, and at no period of her 
history were the majority of her people of the Roman faith. I make 
this statement deliberately, and rest for its proofs on the facts of 
the case. Bozman and Hazzard both tell us that the earliest settle- 
ment within the present territory of Maryland was made on Kent 
Island, in the years 1628 or '29, five or six years before Lord Balti- 
more's colony touched these shores. William Claiborne of Virginia 
obtained license from King Charles to explore the waters of the 
Chesapeake bay, and to establish posts for trading with the Indians 
anywhere within the bounds of the Virginia charter. Both Chalmers 
and McMahon testify to this point. The charter of Virginia 
embraced all the territory two hundred miles north and south of 
Old Point Comfort along the coast, including all the States of 
Maryland, Delaware, and one-third of New Jersey, and a good slice 
of Pennsylvania (Hazzard, vol. i. p. 73). In that colony the 
Church of England was established by law. A few words from the 
official documents of the times will show the policy of the English 
Government relative to matters of religion in her colonies. In the 
'•articles, orders and instructions" for the Virginia colony, issued 
November 20, 1606, occur these words : 

" We do specially ordaiu, charge and require the presidents and councils (of the 
two Virginia Colonies) respectively within their several limits and precincts, that 
they, with all care, diligence and respect, do provide that the true Word and Service 
of God and Christian faith be preached, and planted, and used," &c. 

What that true Word and Service of Grod — in the eye of the 
English law — was, is still more apparent in the words, " according 
to the doctrine, rites and religion now professed and established 
within our realm of England " (1 Henning, 69). 

From this colony of Virginia came William Claiborne, a man 
closely identified with the early history of Maryland. It has been 
the style of such as have written in the interest of the Catholic 
toleration theory, to abuse Claiborne, as an unprincipled disturber 
of the peace of the infant colony, and as a rebel against the right- 
ful authority of Lord Baltimore. In explanation of his relation to 
the Maryland colony, and to show what manner of man Claiborne 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 11 

was, in the estimation of his king, and of the loyal Governors of Vir- 
ginia, we will present a few facts from the records of the times. 
From the time of the first issue of the Virginia charter to the year 
1624, the aftairs of the colony were managed by the company from 
London ; hut then the charter was annulled by tlie King, and twelve 
persons were appointed to reside in the colony, and manage its 
affairs (1 Hazzard, 191-192). William Claiborne was one of the 
twelve. King James I. of England died in the year 1625, and was 
succeeded in the throne by his son Charles I. In the same year 
King Charles commissioned Sir George Yeardley, one of the Council, 
Governor, and William Claiborne, Secretary of State, of and for the 
colony and plantation of Virginia. The words of the commission 
say : 

"Forasmuch as the aflfairs of state in said colony and plantation may necessarily 
require some person of quality and trust to be employed as Secretary, . . . our will 
and pleasure is, and we do by these presents nominate and assign you, the said Wm. 
Claiborne, to be our Secretary of State ..." 

The ground of this appointment, as alleged in the King's com- 
mission, was the quality and irustivorthiness of the man (1 Hazzard, 
233). When Gov. Yeardley died and Harvey succeeded, Claiborne 
continued Secretary of State — McMahon says, ''abundantly evi- 
dencins: the hig-h estimation in which he was then held." We 
make these quotations to show Claiborne's character and explain his 
future action. While Secretary of State for Virginia, Claiborne 
received from the Governors of Virginia — McMahon says "from 
the English government" — licenses to discover and establish in the 
Chesapeake Bay, and within the territory of Virginia, trading-posts 
from which he might carry on commerce with the Indians. From 
a petition made by him to King Charles in the year 1638 we learn 
that — 

" he discovered, and did then plant upon an Island in the great Bay of Chesapeake, 
in Virginia, and by them named Kent Island, which they bought of the kings of the 
country, aud built houses, transported cattle and settled people thereon, to their very 
great cost and charges" (2 Bozman, 582). 

The exact year of this settlement is not here stated, but in 
" Breviat of the proceedings of the Lord Baltimore " it is stated — 

"that the Island called Kent was seated aud peopled under the Virginian govern- 
ment, three or four years before the King's grant to him" (1 Hazzard, 638). 



12 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

Baltimore's grant was made in 1632. Three or four years carry 
us back to 1628 or '9. William Claiborne in a lawful way dis- 
covered and purchased Kent Island, and took up the lands according 
to the custom of the colony at that time (Streeter's Maryland Two 
Hundred Years Ago). To show how completely organized was the 
settlement, we have the fact that burgesses from there sat in the 
Assembly of Virginia. 

The Virginia records show that there were, at first, about one 
hundred settlers under Claiborne on Kent Island. Their founder 
provided for their spiritual wants in the presence and ministration 
of the Rev. Richard James of the English Church. Surely in all 
this William Claiborne was acting in a very manly and honest way. 
But his rights on Kent Island have yet a firmer basis. In the year 
1630, influenced perhaps by the knowledge tliat Lord Baltimore was 
about to apply for a grant of the Virginia lands, Claiborne applied 
to King Charles, and received from him a license still more explicit, 
and one whicli justified him in regarding that part of the territory 
as perraanentl}^ secured to himself and his settlers. This license is 
dated May 16, 1631, and runs thus : — 

"These are to license and autliorize you, the said William Claiborne, one of the 
Council, and the Secretary of the Stale, for our Colony of Virginia, his associates 
and company, freely and without molestation, from time to time to trade for corn, 
furs, &c., with their ships, boats, men and merchandise, in all seas, coasts, harbors, 
lands or territories in or near those parts of America for which there is not already 
a patent granted to others for sole trade; giving and by these presents granting unto 
the said William Claiborne full power to diTect and r/overn, correct and punish such of 
our subjects as may or sliall be under his command in his voyages and discoveries " 
(1 Bozman, 266, Note). 

Rev. Ethan Allen, D. D., to whom we are greatly indebted for 
help in this paper, says in " Sketches on the Early History of Mary- 
land to the year 1650 ": 

"From the mere wording of the King's license to Claiborne, it may not appear 
from first sight to have had any reference to Kent Island; but in his petition to the 
King, and the Council's decision l>hereou in 1639, that it was so understood. And it 
was supposed by Claiborne, and the King also, to give him, that is Claiborne, the au- 
thority to govern the discoveries he migiit make The title to territory, according to 
usage, was to be derived from the colonial authorities, but here the power to excrcite 
government was given him." 

We now come to the time when Lord Baltimore enters into our 
history. He was a native of Yorkshire, England, and represented 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 13 

that county in Parliament. Plis education was first at Trinity 
College, Oxford, and afterward on the Continent. Robert Cecil, 
Lord Treasurer, made George Calvert his Secretary ; from that 
office he was advanced to be Clerk of the Council. He was knighted 
by King James in 1618, and in 1619 became one of the two Secre- 
taries of State. While in this otfice the King gave him a patent as 
proprietor of the whole south-eastern peninsula of New Foundland, 
to which Calvert gave the name of Avalon, the ancient name of 
Glastonbury, the seat of the renowned Abbey, which was reputed, 
by tradition, to have been the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, who 
first preached the Gospel there and founded a church. Tradition 
said that a " miraculous thorn " which flowered on Christmas day^ 
was the veritable staff with which Joseph aided his steps from the 
Holy Land to Avalon. Calvert gave the name of Avalon to his 
settlement in New Foundland, An able historian says : 

"This depeiKlonce upon a tradition wliicli rests upon the very weakest authority, 
may be regarded as a token of Calvert's mind at that period, to receive with implicit 
faith those questionable narratives, whicli Fuller justly describes as 'being much 
pufled up with the leaven of monkery ' " (Anderson's Colonial Church History, vol. i. 
p. 404). 

George Calvert was full of zeal, and sought, as Anderson 
testifies — 

" and his efforts to make tlie Avalon of the New World a precious seed-plot of 
Christianity to its benighted inhabitants, were as great as if the dark legend had be^'n 
a true record of Holy Writ." 

To this time he had seemed to be a loyal member of the church of 
his baptism ; but in the year 1624 he announced to King James, that 
he had entered the Roman Church, and resigned his office of 
Secretary of State, saying that lie could no longer hold it with a 
safe conscience, (Fuller's Worthies, Yorkshire, pp. 201, 202). 
But <Cal vert stood high in the esteem and affection of King James, 
who, like his son Charles, held fast to his personal favorites, even 
when doing so offended the people, and trenched upon his fidelity 
to the laws of the realm. He retained Calvert as a member of the 
Privy Council, and created him Lord Baltimore, of Baltimore in 
Ireland, by which title he is afterwards known in history. Subse- 
quent events seemed to di.scourage him in the direction of his 
Avalon colony, and he withdrew from it entirely. But he did not 



14 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

renounce his intention to found a colony in the New World. Cast- 
ing liis eye further south, he saw the fair and hroad domain covered by 
the Virginia charter, and sought to obtain part of this territory for 
himself. In the year 1629 we find Lord Baltimore at Jamestown, 
in Virginia. The Royal instructions to the colonial authorities re- 
quired all who came into the colony to take the oath of allegiance, 
and that oi' supremacy , to the King of England. Baltimore declined 
to take these oaths ; and after sailing up the Chesapeake to examine 
it, returned to England, where Streetcr says he was the next 
January, 1G30. At the English Court he used his influence to 
obtain a part of the Virginia territory, and finally procured from 
Cliarles the promise of such grant. But the first Lord Baltimore 
died before the charter was executed ; and the grant was made out 
to his son, Cecilius Calvert, the Second Lord Baltimore, on the 
IC.th of June, 1632. 

The charter included about eight millions of acres of land, em- 
bracing the peninsula between the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, 
on the Eastern Shore, all the Western Shore of the present territory 
of Maryland, and northward to the fortieth degree of latitude, a little 
north of Philadelphia. The ground of action influencing the King 
and his Council in this invasion of territory, which was within the 
original Virginia charter, is probably that suggested by Bozman, viz. 
that as the whole Province was now governed by the King, as a part 
of the empire, and this large section of it was yet unsettled and 
uncultivated, it was just and wise to adopt a policy which would 
sooner fill it with a civilized and Christian people. Nor would we 
say that this view of it was wrong, so long as it did not contravene 
rights which the King had already granted ; but there was a posi- 
tive injustice and wrong in such contravention, which King Charles 
never designed, and which his subsequent utterances show that he 
regarded with strong disapprobation. The King called the new 
colony Maryland, in honor of his Queen Henrietta Maria, and de- 
scribes it as " an uncultivated country in the parts of America, and 
partly occupied by savages." King Charles might readily have 
fallen into this mistake, and also his Council, being far from the 
country, and unacquainted with its geography. But Lord Balti- 
more knew it was not true. Within this territory there were two 
Christian settlements — a Protestant colony of Swedes on the western 
shore of the Delaware river, and the Kent Island settlement under 



MAEYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 15 

Claiborne. Ot'this latter Lord Baltimore was fully accLuaiuted, and 
he could not, in truth, say that it was " unsettled and uncultivated." 
In his petition to the King in 1638, Claiborne says: 

" Lord Baltimore took notice of it wliea there " (2 Boztuan, 582). 

A pamphlet published in England in the year 1655 says — 

" that Lord Baltimore pretended, though not truly, that the country was uuplauted, 
and that his suggestions to the King that those parts were uncultivated and un- 
plauted, except by a barbarous people, not having the knowledge of God, was a mis- 
information." 

This is quite a gentle term of condemnation for an act which led 
to the breaking up of a peaceful community, and to the shedding of 
human blood. True, the settlement on Kent Island was small ; one 
hundred Christian settlers only; but one hundred was a larger pro- 
portion to the territory of Kent Island than Baltimore's two hundred 
to the territory of the whole State. As late as 1648 tlie wliole 
population of Baltimore's colony did not exceed four hundred, in- 
cluding the Kent Island settlement. If some interested Puritan, in 
high favor with Cromwell, had represented the large tract of ter- 
ritory embraced within Lord Baltimore's charter as " unplcmted," 
and asked for all the Eastern or Western Shore, on that ground, or 
for a new grant of the whole territory, Baltimore and his adherents 
would have thought themselves greatly misrepresented and wronged. 
Yet there would have been as much truth in such a representation, 
and as much justice in such a grant, as there were in Baltimore's 
representation to King Charles and the grounds upon which he 
sought his charter. Indeed, knowing as he did of Claiborne's set- 
tlement under the King's license, Baltimore's action in the premises 
looks very much like a sharp turn of a shrewd politician to do Clai- 
borne out of his rights. I shall have more to say upon this point, 
showing that as his charter was made to include Kent Island by 
misrepresentation, so his possession of it came by violence and in- 
justice. 

I think I have made good my point that the earliest settlement of 
Maryland was not Roman Catholic; but in bringing out and sus- 
taining our main position, that the act of the Maryland Legislature 
in 16-i9 was not a free act of a Roman Catholic Governor and Legis- 
lature, an act of grace to Protestants, and for the extension of 
religious liberty, it will be needful for us to go more fully into the 
facts of the times. 



16 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

Lord Baltimore's cliarter, dated June 1632, iiii mediately called 
out a protest from the Virginia colony. Both Hazzard and Bozman 
tell us that the result of this appeal left Lord Baltimore in the 
possession of his charter, and referred the Virginia colony to the 
English courts to adjudicate any interests which were compromised. 
The matter was heard in the Court of the Star Chamber, to whom 
the King referred the petition oi' the Virginia colony, on the 25th of 
June, in the year 1633. Both parties were to set down in writing 
their propositions and answers to be presented to the court. These 
requirements were complied with, and in July— 

" their lordships liaving heard and maturely considered the said propositions, answers 
and reasons, and whatsoever else was urged on either side, did think fit to leave Lord 
Baltimore to his patent, and the other parties to the course of the law according to 
their desire. But for tiie preventing of further questions and differences, their lord- 
ships did think and order that things stand as they do — the planters on either side 
shall have free traffic and commerce with each other, «&c." 

Such is the reading of the decision according to Hazzard. The 
same was in the first edition of Bozman, but in his second edition 
he follows Chalmers, and reads for ^'that things stand as they do," 
that things standing as they do. The true sense of the decision 
is, that things were to remain as they were, until decided by a due 
course of law ; that is, the Virginia planters were not to be deprived 
of Kent Island, nor was Lord Baltimore's patent to be vacated. 
The prior claim of the Virginia planters was to be left, as they 
desired, to the law to decide for or against them. The Star Chamber 
did not decide against either. So the Virginians understood the 
decision, and Burk, the Virginia historian, says (2 Burk, 39) — 

" the Board acknowledged the justice of the claim of the Virginia planters." " They 
certainly left the matter open for the decision of the law courts as these planters de- 
sired." 

Lord Baltimore's colony left England in the fall of 1633, and 
arrived in Maryland the next spring, under the supervision of his 
brother Leonard Calvert as Lieutenant-Governor. Old England 
was good enough for Lord Baltimore. Romanists tell us that 
Maryland was to be a haven of refuge for their persecuted people ; 
but Lord Baltimore, a young man in the vigor of twenty-eight 
years, preferred Old England to the discomforts of Maryland and 
the dangers of the sea. An able writer says : 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 17 

" It must not be overlooked that the first and second Lords Baltimore were very 
different men. The elder was perhaps influenced by religious considerations in 
founding tiie Maryland colony; the younger, as proof in abundance shows, had his 
eye upon the pecuniary advantages to be derived from his large grant of land, in no 
small degree" (Ethan Allen's American Ecclesiastical History). 

The colonists spent part of the winter of 1633-34 in the West 
Indies, and on their way north touched at Jamestown, the Virginia 
settlement. They were hospitably entertained for a few days as the 
guests of the Virginians. William Claiborne was there, a citizen 
of Virginia, a member of the Governor's Council and Secretary of 
State. Governor Calvert at once claimed him as a member of the 
Maryland plantation, and demanded that he relinquish all relation 
to and dependence on Virginia. Claiborne resisted this claim, and 
denied Lord Baltirnore's right to Kent Island ; but he appealed to 
the Governor and Council of Virginia for advice how to act in the 
case. Surely this does not look like self-will and lawlessness on the 
part of Claiborne. Dr. Allen remarks: 

" The claim of Governor Calvert was not only that the Kent Island settlers, with 
their Proprietor, should submit to his government, but it involved their title to the 
right of soil also. Admit Governor Calvert's claim, which, as we have seen, the 
Star Chamber did not decide upon, but referred to the courts of law, and it involved 
the necessity of abandoning their plantations, and thus losing the fruits of past 
years of labor, or of a repurchase of tlie soil from Lord Baltimore, upon his own 
terms of plantation, as they were called, so that instead of holding under Captain 
Claiborne, upon the annual payment of two capons. Lord Baltimore would become 
entitled to his quit rents from them." 

In response to Claiborne's request for advice from the Governor 
and Council, it was answered by the Board that — - 

"they wondered why any such question was made; that Ihey knew no reason why 
they should render up the rights of the place of the Island of Kent more than any 
other formerly given to tliis the Virginia colony by his Majesty's patent, and that the 
right of my Lord Baltimore's grant being yet undetermined in England, we are 
bound in duty and by our oaths to maintain the rights and privileges of this colony," 
&c. (2 Bozman, 571). 

Very clearly indeed does this show that the authorities did not 
understand the matter as settled by the decision of the Star Cham- 
ber, but only as referring the opposing claims to the courts for 
decision, until which time each party was to remain in the quiet 
enjoyment of what they had. They therefore felt and determined 
it to be their duty to maintain the rights of the Kent Islanders 



18 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

until such decision was reached. They would not relinquish their 
rights, nor allow Claiborne to yield his proprietorship. That they 
were right in their judgment and action is evident from what took 
place in England, only three or four months later. On the 22d of 
July the same year the committee of the Privy Council for the 
colonies, known as the Commissioners for Plantations, write to the 
Governor and Council of Virginia in these words : 

*' His Mnjesty dolh let you know that 'tis not intended that interests which have 
been settled wlien you were a corporation should be impeached ; that for the present, 
they may enjoy their estates with the same freedom and privilege as they did before 
the recalling of their patents ; to which purpose we do also authorize you to dispose 
of such portions of land to all those planters, being freemen, as you had power to do 
before the year 1625 " (1 Hazzard, 345; 2 Bozman, 42, note; 2 Bozman, 571). 

This language shows beyond question that those private rights 
which were settled on Kent Island, were never intended to be in- 
vaded or unsettled by Lord Baltimore's charter. Was it strange 
that Claiborne and others interested on Kent Island, should suppose 
from this assurance of the commissioners tliat their interests were 
not to be impeached by Lord Baltimore's patent? Can any man 
wonder that, with the support of the Governor and Council of Vir- 
ginia, with the judgment of the King's Privy Council, and with 
the favorable letters of the Commissioners of Plantations, Captain 
Claiborne declined compliance with Lord Baltimore's demands ? 

If any one were disposed to question the conclusion we reach, 
there is one more fragment of evidence on the point which ought to be 
sufficiently conclusive. Claiborne made a petition to the King after 
he had been dispossessed by force^of arms, in which he alludes to a 
letter which had been written by his Majesty on the matter. He 
says : 

" His Majesty was pleased to signify his royal pleasure by letter, intimating that it 
was contrary to justice and to the true intent of his Majesty's grant to Lord Balti- 
more to dispossess them of Kent Island ; that notwithstanding the said patent, the 
petili^iners should have freedom of trade, requiring the Governor and all others in 
Virginia to be aiding and assisting them, prohibiting the Lord Baltimore and all 
pretenders (under) him to offer them any violence, or to disturb or molest them in 
their Kent Island plantation." 

Bozman says — 

" It is not to be doubted that a letter of this import was signed by his Majesty " 
(2 Bozman, 69, note). 



MAEYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 19 

Let US follow the facts, and see how they bear upon the much 
lauded justice and generosity of Lord Baltimore. In the fiice of 
Claiborne's occupancy under a royal license, and despite the instruc- 
tions of his King as to the true intent of his charter, Lord Balti- 
more, by violence and force of arms, drove Claiborne out of his Kent 
Island possessions. True, an attempt was made to give a greater 
color of justice to these violent proceedings, on the ground that 
Claiborne was stirring up the Indians to hostility against the iSt. 
Mary's settlement of Lord Baltimore. Streeter says, " This charge 
was shown to be false by the testimony of the chief of the Patuxents," 
(Streeter's Papers relating to the early history of Maryland, 6, Note). 
Father White, the Jesuit annalist of the colony, lays the blame at 
the door of a certain Captain Fleet, who was under Claiborne's in- 
fluence. Fleet was a Protestant, and an Indian trader, from Vir- 
ginia. Our readers may judge for themselves how much credence 
is to be attached to this assertion, and how far it was believed at St. 
Mary's, when we tell them that Fleet resided in the Maryland 
colony, that the Governor and Council gave him four thousand acres 
of land, accepted him as a member of the Legislature, and ap- 
pointed him to head an expedition against the Indians. Some excuse 
was needed to give color to the wrong contemplated against Clai- 
borne and his Protestant colony, and this seemed most feasible. 
Bozman — misled, mainly, it would seem, by Chalmers — countenances 
this reflection upon Claiborne. Streeter says of the charge against 
Claiborne, made by Father White, and emphasized by the action 
of the Maryland authorities against him : 

''It is difficult to reconcile this assertion with the known position of Fleete in the 
Colony for several years afterward, and with facts which, instead of countenancing 
Buch a view, prove Fleete to have been in opposition to Claiborne, and to have been 
the means of throwing an unfounded imputation upon him, of having attempted to 
excite the savages to acts of hostility against the Marylanders " (Streeter's Maryland 
Papers, p. 68). 

Mr. Streeter's allusion to Fleet's ''known position" refers to 
offices of trust and confidence which he held under the Lord Balti- 
more government, a position utterly inconsistent with the assertion of 
Father White, that he, " seduced by Claiborne, stirred up the minds 
of the natives against us." The further observations of Mr. Streeter 
go far to clear Claiborne of the imputation, and convict Fleet of 
falsehood and duplicity. He says : 



CO MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

" The insinuatious and hints of Capt. Fleele turned the suspicions of the colonists 
af^ainst Chiiborne; and measures were immediately adopted for holding a conference 
with the king of tlio Patuxents and otiier chiefs to investigate tiie matter. The meeting 
was held on the 20lh of June, 1634, and there were present four of the principal 
members of the Virginia colony; George Calvert and Frederick Winter and some 
others on the part of tlie Maiylanders, and Capt. Claiborne in person. Capt. Fleete 
did not, appear. After the interpreters were sworn, the chief of the Patuxents was 
informed that they had come to inquire respecting a statement of Capt. Fleete to the 
Governor of Maryland, and the lives of some of their people depended on his testi- 
mony. He answered their interrogatories, and in the course of his replies denied 
that Capt. Claiborne had ever spoken against the Marylanders, or attempted to in- 
duce him to attack or injure them. Tlie other chiels gave a similar testimony. The 
chief further asserted that in an interview at St. Mary's, Fleete had asked him 
whether Capt. Claiborne had not spoken with him against the colony, and he had 
told him that nothing of the kind had occurred. He therefore indignantly declared 
that Fleete was a liar, and if he were present he would tell him so to his face. 
Further, upon his, that is the chief, expressing surprise that they should place any 
confidence in such a man as Fleete, the Virginia Commissioners replied that 'the 
gentlemen of Yawacomaco did not know Capt. Fleete as well as they of Virginia, 
because they were late come.' " 

Another Iiidian testified to Fleet's efforts to awaken suspicions 
and excite hostilities between the colonists of St. Mai-y's and Kent 
Island. Fleet was an able, but in all probability an unprincipled 
man. Governor Calvert had no right to trust in hini, but he 
availed himself ot'his abilities, and was closely associated witb him 
in many ways. It is worthy of remark that this point of the testi- 
mony of the Patuxent chief which Streeter gives so fully in favor of 
Claiborne, is made by Chalmers against him, and also that Lord 
Baltimore's order to " seize and punish him " was on the pretext 
that he stirred up the Indians against the Maryland colony. 

Bozman, misled by Chalmers, lias fallen into the same error, and 
maintains the charge 'against Claiborne which the Indians had set 
aside. In spite of all this testimony, the Maryland authorities pro- 
ceeded to enforce their will against Claiborne and the Kent Island 
settlers, without awaiting that due course of law by which the King 
and Star Chamber had determined the questions at issue were to be 
adjusted. Gradually the two communities drifted into open hostili- 
ties, boats were armed and sent out, and men were killed on both 
sides. The wrong was clearly on the side of Lord Baltimore. The 
question had not yet been adjudicated in the courts ; and, until such 
was the case, Claiborne was justified in forcible resistance. An armed 
expedition in 1637 reduced Kent Island to subjection, and brought 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 21 

back some prisoners to St. Mary's. Thomas Smith, an officer with 
a commission from Claiborne, underwent the farce of a trial, and was 
condemned and hanged for piracy and murder. The execution of 
this poor man was clearly a judicial murder, if ever one was perpe- 
trated under the forms of law. He was indicted for felony and 
piracy, when, under a commission, he was only obeying the officer 
his king had put over him. The armed expedition of Leonard 
Calvert succeeded in robbing Claiborne and others of their rights. 
The records of the Virginia colony show that among other sufferers 
was the Rev. Mr. James, the pastor of the Kent Island settlement. 
Leaving the colony, he went to England with Claiborne, and his 
goods were confiscated by the Government of St. Mary's. 

I have one more fact germane to this point ; it is the estimate 
put upon all these proceedings in England when intelligence of 
them, came there. William Claiborne repaired to England, and 
appeared before his king, expelled from his rights, and attainted by 
the act of Baltimore's Legislature, of murder and piracy. He ap- 
peared bef()re King Charles, the superior lord of both these men, 
who liad given Claiborne his license and Baltimore his patent. 
The King surely knew the meaning and intent of both, and was 
])repared to estimate impartially the conduct of each toward the 
other. What was the King's judgment ? Did he approve Lord 
Baltimore's violent course, and condemn Claiborne as a pirate and 
murderer ? The King issued this order to Lord Baltimore, which 
I shall give in full : 

" Whereas, formerly by our Royal letters to the Governor and Council of Virginia, 
and to our other officers and subjects in those parts, we signified our pleasure that 
William Claiborne, David Moreliead, and other planters in the Island near Virginia 
which they have nominated Kent Island, should in no sort be interrupted in their trade 
or 'plantation by you, or any other on your rvjht, but rather be encouraged to proceed in so 
good a icork, we do now understand that, though your agents had notice of our said 
pleasure, signified by our letters, yet contrary thereto they have slain three of our sub- 
jects thei'c, and by force possessed themselves of that Island, and carried away both the 
estates of said planters. Now, out of onr Royal care to prevent such disorders, as we 
have referred to our Commissioners of Plantations the examination of the truth of 
these complaints, and require them to proceed therein according to justice, so, now, 
by these particular letters to yourself, we strictly require and command you to perform 
what our general letter did enjoin, and that the above named planters and their 
agents may enjoy in the meantime their possessions and be safe in their persons and 
goods there, without disturbance or farther trouble by you or any of yours, until that 
case be decided. And herein we expect your ready conformity, that there be no 
cause of any further mistake. Dated .luly 14, 1638." 



22 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

This letter is clear and explicit, and no amount of sophistical 
comment can change its sense, upon certain points. It makes the 
original intention of the King clear beyond question, that the 
rights of trade and plantation already vested on the Kent Island, 
under the King's license and the Virginia charter, were not to be 
disturbed by Baltimore's patent. This order brings out more clearly 
what the King meant in a former letter, when he said, " it was con- 
trary to justice, and to the true intent of the grant to Lord Balti- 
more, to dispossess them of Kent Island." In this order he says, 
"Lord Baltimore's agents had by force possessed themselves of the 
Island." Surely if, in the King's intention, it belonged to Balti- 
more, he would not speak of his taking possession of his own as a 
wrong done by him. But the King does so speak, and commands 
Lord Baltimore to make restitution to the wronged planters, until 
the issue was decided by law. We think we can see clearly the 
point of difficulty, and tlie seeming contradiction in the words of 
the King, and the final decision of the Commissioners of Planta- 
tions, in favor of Lord Baltimore. Lord Baltimore had represented to 
the King the whole country as " unsettled and uncultivated except 
hy savages." On this representation the King issued to Lord Bal- 
timore his patent, excluding in intention every idea of its interference 
with rights already vested by a previous license to Williaip Claiborne. 
As soon as the King found that tiie patent did geographically in- 
clude Kent Island, every utterance of his shows that his inten- 
tion, rather than the geographical limits of the charter, was the 
rule by which he interpreted it. Baltimore stuck to the literal geo- 
graphical limit of the charter, gotten from the King by misrepre- 
sentation ; and pushed, to the last degree, the advantage which it 
gave him. The King felt the wrong of depriving men of rights 
which preceded those of Baltimore, and in all his utterances on the 
subject to them, and to Lord Baltimore, showed his sense of that 
wrong. The matter in dispute was ultimately decided by the 
"Commissioners of Plantations" against William Claiborne; but 
long before such decision was given. Lord Baltimore had shown his 
determination to push his claim to the uttermost, and, right or 
wrong, to get all he could from his charter. The decision was 
finally in his favor; probably because they looked at the simple 
letter of the charter ; and as Kent Island was geographically com- 
prehended in it by the letter of the law, they gave it to Lord Bal- 



MARYLA.ND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 23 

timore, and confirmed him in it. But even in that decision they 
left Claiborne to the ordinary courts of justice for pecuniary repa- 
ration from the wrong of wliich he complained. 

We shall see, before we close, that the end was not yet, and that 
Lord Baltimore had to reap the fruits of his own sowing, in a har- 
vest of disquietude and loss. He subdued Kent Island, confiscated 
the estates of some of the more prominent persons, among others of 
the Rev. Mr. James, their English clergyman, even seizing by a 
legal writ from St. Mary's, the cattle of his widow after her hus- 
band's death in England. Having finished his work of conquest, 
Baltimore appointed George Evelyn and John Longford, both 
Roman Catholics, the former Commander, the other High Sheriff 
of Kent Island, and thus reduced an independent Protestant com- 
munity, whose existence dated some years before his charter, to 
alien and hostile control. 

The work of spoliation was now complete. The King's over- 
weenins afi'ection and confidence towards Lord Baltimore bound 
him to the legal construction of a charter which made him an 
unwilling party in a great wrong. That wrong he could not then 
well amend, by recasting the charter of Maryland. But the King 
of England did make amends, as far as in him lay, to William 
Claiborne for the wrong he had unwittingly done him. In the 
year 1642, a'fter the King had time for a deliberate review of all the 
facts in the case, and for a calm apprehension of his great wrong to 
a faithful subject, he appointed William Claiborne King's Treas- 
urer for life in the colony of Virginia. The appointment was 
directly from the King (1 Hazzard 493). Just ten days before Clai- 
borne received this appointment of honor and emolument from his 
King, Lord Baltimore was summoned before the House of Lords on 
charges for some ofi'ence, we know not now of what character, but 
at least so grave that he was put under bonds not to leave the king- 
dom (Streeter, pp. 29, 30). Surely there is an aspect of retributive 
justice in the attitude of these two men at this time. Claiborne 
came over to America after the question of his proprietary rights to 
Kent Island was decided against him, and in the year 1640, re- 
ceived from the Governor and Council of Virginia a large grant of 
land, for great services rendered that colony. The relations of the 
two colonies were so amicable at that time, and the courtesies 
between the two Governors, Wyatt and Calvert, such, that Claiborne 



24 MAEYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

was encouraged to seek for the recovery of his private property on 
Kent Island. His agent on Kent Island, Mr. George Scovell, ap- 
plied to the Governor and Council for the recovery of such property ; 
he received a reply, dated August 21, 1640; and was told that all 
property in the hands of Claiborne at the time of his withdrawal 
was forfeited to the Lord Proprietor, and that he stood attainted for 
piracy and murder. It is said that Lord Baltimore did not accept 
the acts of this Legislature, because they rejected the laws which 
he sent them from England to enact, and insisted on originating 
laws of their own. This is very probable, for it was not until the 
next year, 1639, that the Lord Proprietor assented to their origin- 
ating legislation of their own, subject, however, to his approval or 
veto. Streeter says : 

"If, as is asserted, Lord Baltimore uever asseuted to tlie acts of the Assembly of 
1638, and if, as is undeniable, that assent was necessary to the legality of those acts, 
it would be difficult to show on what grounds the authorities of Maryland could have 
based their claim to hold his property." 

This was the last blow, the last attempt of the Maryland authori- 
ties to insult the man they had so foully wronged. This same year 
he received the grants of land from Virginia in honor and reward 
of distinguished services, and in due time his king wiped ofi" from 
his name and reputation the imputation of pirate and murderer, and 
compensated his losses by the honorable and lucrative office of King's 
Treasurer for life in Virginia. At the same time, or ten days before, 
Lord Baltimorestands under charges before the House of Lords, and 
is bonded not to leave the kingdom. I think this array of facts will 
go very far to dissipate the oft-vaunted assertion of the justice and 
generosity of the administration of Lord Baltimore. They do 
settle beyond question the fact that the first settlement of Maryland 
was Protestant, and that the attitude of Lord Baltimore to that 
olde7' colony was one of unscrupulous and unrelenting hostility. 

To determine intelligently tlie influences which shaped the reli- 
gious and ecclesiastical policy of the Maryland colony, we must 
consider the nationality and religious composition of the colonists. 
The school-books — at least too many of them — and certain partisan 
newspapers, tell us that they were Irish and Catholic. We presume 
the ground for this inference is that, as Lord Baltimore was a 
Romanist, he brought principally Roman Catholic emigrants. 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 25 

Why not, by the same logic, infer that, as he was an Englishman, 
he brought English colonists ? The fact is, they were a very mixed 
people. After the two hundred who came in with Leonard Calvert, 
the later accessions were mostly from Virginia, and the larger pro- 
portion of all the emigrants Englishmen ; but among them were 
Germans, French, Hollanders, Spaniards, Italians, and some Irish. 
Father White, the Jesuit annalist of the colony, tells us that the 
number who left England with Leonard Calvert was two hundred, 
of whom seventeen were gentlemen ; the rest were servants, me- 
chanics, laborers and dependents of various kinds. The reverend 
annalist does not tell us how many were Roman Catholics or how 
many were Protestants, but he gives us the basis of an inference 
that tlie larger portion were Protestants, at the very foundation of 
the colony. The good father tells us — 

" that at the Christmas festival oa their way out from Englaud, which they celebrated 
in the West Indies, that the day might be more joyfully celebrated the wiue flowed 
freely, and some who drank immoderately, about thirty of the number, were seized 
with fever the next day, and twelve of them died, two being Catholics — Nicholas 
Fairfax and James Barefoot." 

If the other ten who died, being Protestants, indicate, even 
approximately, the proportion of Protestants in the expedition, it 
becomes at once evidence that the great proportion of Baltimore's 
settlers were not Roman Catholics. Possibly the seventeen gentle- 
men were mostly Romanists — personal friends of Lord Baltimore — 
but the stronger probability is, that the large majority of the others 
were not. The colonists arrived in Maryland on the 'i^th of March, ^ 
1634, and bought from the Indians 150,000 acres of land for a few 
hatchets, axes, hoes and yards of cloth — pretty much the same 
policy as that which has prevailed ever since in dealing with these 
simple children of nature. Within this purchase they founded St. 
Mary's City, the capital of the province until the year 1694, when 
it was removed to Annapolis. 

To the presumption, justified by the statement of Father White, 
that the majority of the settlers were Protestants, we are to add 
many facts and circumstances going to prove most conclusively that 
Maryland was never properly a Roman Catholic colony. One thing 
is certain : Lord Baltimore designed, if possible, to make it such, 
and did all in his power and consistent with his pecuniary interest 
to further that end. He brought two Jesuit priests to minister to 
4 



26 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

the small number of his own faith ; but, as ftir as all the records we 
possess enable us to judge, no spiritual provision whatever was 
made for the majority, or the large minority of the Protestant 
settlers. We cannot tell the exact date when the first English 
clergyman came into the colony. The records show a Protestant 
chapel in 1638, and in 1642, eight years from the settlement, three 
Protestant churches of the English faith appear — Trinity, St. 
George's, and one in St. Clement's Hundred of which we do not 
know the name. To this date none of the authorities speak of a 
second Roman chapel, while there are at least three Protestant 
churches ; and to our day Protestant Episcopal churches stand on 
or near these sites. This fact shows the majority of Protestants, 
as the increase of their churches was a sure index of the numbers 
and needs. 

In the year 1644, William Claiborne, heading a military expedi- 
tion, regained possession of Kent Island, where he was welcomed by 
the people, who were glad to be rid of the Roman Catholic officers, 
whom, against their assent, and as one of the fruits of their conquest, 
Governor Calvert liad put over them. Calvert made an expedition 
to Kent to displace Claiborne, but was unsuccessful (2 Bozman, 
287-290). 

The next year Ingle's rebellion drove Governor Calvert out of the 
colon}'. It is said that he acted under a commission from the Par- 
liament, which was then entirely under the control of the Puritans. 
About this time, or a little before, Parliament made the Earl of 
Warwick '^ Governor-in-Chief, and Lord High Admiral of all the 
American colonies, witii a Council of five Peers and twelve Com- 
moners to assist him." They also declared any one who took part 
with the King, in the civil war then raging in England between 
King and Parliament, as liable to confiscation and sequestration (2 
Bozman, 289). It did certainly look as if the Parliament intended 
to govern the colonies directly from England. This fact is still 
more significant when we remember, as Streeter says. Lord Balti- 
more was, in 1642, under bonds not to leave the kingdom. Under 
all the circumstances of the case, there need be little question that 
Ingle had the secret, if not the open countenance of the Puritan 
authorities in England. Ingle's occupancy of St. Mary's continued 
about two years, and was, no doubt, a crucial time to the Roman 
Catholic friends of Lord Baltimore. The Jesuit Missions were 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 27 

broken up, and the Fathers sent to England for trial (Streeter, 33-34), 
Father White says of these events — 

"that tliere were certain soldiers, unjust, plunderers, Englisbmen indeed by birth, of 
the heterodox faith " — 

— of course orthodox Romanists never invade anybody's possessions, 
nor appropriate other people's rights — 

— " had invaded with arms almost the entire colony ; had plundered, burnt, and finally, 
having abducted the priests and driven the Governor himself into exile, had reduced 
it to a miserable servitude." 

No doubt these were stormy times for the St. Mary's people, and 
especially for Lord Baltimore's friends ; but he and they might 
have remembered that they were not guiltless in this matter ; and 
that some of the people of Maryland, especially those of Kent Island, 
perhaps had a lively recollection of the expulsion of their proprietor, 
the confiscations, the imprisonments and executions done by Leonard 
Calvert and his associates, before the voice of the English law courts 
had decided in his favor and against Claiborne's claim. It has ever 
been claimed, as the exclusive prerogative of Baltimore's co-re- 
ligionists, to persecute and oppress ; and none cry louder, or com- 
plain more bitterly, when the chalice of their own poisoning is 
commended to their lips. 

Governor Calvert returned to his government at the close of the 
3^ear 1646. Aided by troops from Virginia, he recovered Kent 
Island in the beginning of the next year, and died June the 9th, 
aged 40 years, after having named Thomas Green to succeed him. 
The affairs of the colony were now in the most dilapidated state. 
Population had declined to 150 on Kent Island, and 250 at St. 
Mary's. The colony was evidently in danger of extinction, or if 
not that, of being taken out of the hands of Lord Baltimore. The 
Parliament — or rather Cromwell and his army — were now masters 
in England. The King was seized by Cromwell, June 3, 1647, and 
murdered January 30, 1649, putting the most extreme and radical 
Puritan element in the entire control of the British Empire through- 
out the world. The colony was a very difficult and complex thing 
for Lord Baltimore to manage under such circumstances — decline 
in the colony itself, threatening its extinction ; at home, the com- 
plete ascendancy of an irresponsible Puritan despotism. To save 



28 MAEYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

the colony from ruin, he must settle its government; to save it to 
himself, he must conciliate the Puritan masters at home. What 
did he do to attain these results? He appointed Robert Vaughn, a 
Protestant, Commander of Kent Island, and Colonel William Stone, 
a Protestant, and the most energetic man in the colony, to be his 
Governor of the province of Maryland. This appointment was 
made in the year 1648, while the King lay in prison. The ends and 
aims which determined it are beyond question. It was a politic 
stroke of self protection on the part of Lord Baltimore; no more, no 
less. The appointment was made August 17th, 1648, on the condi- 
tion, as his commission says, that he was to bring in five hundred 
settlers. The commission phrases it thus: " In some sort to pro- 
cure five hundred people, of British or Irish descent, to come from 
other places, and plant and reside within the province of Maryland." 
Of Stone, John Langford, formerly Lord Baltimore's High Sherifi", 
says in a pamphlet published in London in the year 1655 : 

" he was well known to be a zealous and well affected Protestant; be was generally 
known to liave been always zealously affected to the Parliament." 

These five hundred must, in the very nature of the case, have been 
mainly Protestant. Stone, who had been High Sheriff of North- 
ampton County, Virginia, brought his five hundred settlers from 
that colony, where all were Protestants, and from henceforth the 
immense majority of the colony were to be Protestants, and all its 
future legislation be in their hands Whatever legislation they 
might determine on religion, would possibly be in the direction of 
the anti-Roman Catholic legislation of the home government. 
Lord Baltimore saw this, and, so far as in him lay, he would pro- 
vide against it. He therefore appointed Stone, an energetic man 
and Protestant, his Governor, to repair his wasting colony, and to 
control the turbulent elements of a rather radical and revolutionary 
Protestantism, into whose hands his colony was just passing. 

The oath administered by Lord Baltimore to Col. Stone is of 
special interest in its religious features. It runs thus : 

"I will not by myself, nor any person, directly or indirectly trouble, molest or 
discountenance any person in that province professing to believe in Jesus Christ, and 
in paiticular no Roman Catliolic, for, or in respect to his or her religion, nor in his 
or her free exercise tliereof within said province, so that they be not unfaithful to his 
said Lordship, or molest or conspire against the civil government established here 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 29 

under bim. Nor will I make any differeuce of persons in conferring rewards, offices, 
or favors proceeding from the authority which his Lordship hath conferred upon me, 
as his lieutenant here, for or in respect to their said religion respectively, but merely as 
I shall find them faithful and well deserving to his Lordship, and, to tlie best of my 
understanding, endowed with moral virtues and abilities, fitting for such rewards, 
offices, and favors, wherein my prime aim and end from time to time shall be the ad- 
vancement of his said Lordship's service here, and the public unity and good of the 
province, without any partiality to any or another sinister end whatever; and if any 
other officer or person whatsoever shall, during the time of my being his Lordship's 
lieutenant, without my consent or privity, molest or disturb any person within liis 
province professing to believe in Josus Christ, merely for, or in respect to his or her 
free religion, or free exercise thereof, upon notice or complaint made to me, I will 
apply my power and authority to relieve and to protect any person so molested or 
troubled, wherebj' he may have right done him from any damage which he shall 
suffer in that kind, and to the utmost of my power will cause all and every such per- 
son or persons, as shall molest or trouble any other person or persons in that manner, 
to be punished." 

This oath has been lauded beyond- measure, as the very concen- 
tration of justice and generosity, and as showing the highest breadth 
of mind, the largest liberality of heart. But calm and impartial 
historical justice requires us to analyze the facts, and refute the 
errors concerning it. (Chalmers, wlio has misled many persons con- 
cerning the history of Maryland, gives this oath in a most inaccurate 
and deceptive way. I will give his version of the clause in fall, that 
the reader may compare them. Chalmers' version runs thus : 

" I will not by myself, nor any person, directly or indirectly trouble, molest, or dis- 
countenance any person professing to believe in Jesus Christ, for or in respect to 
religion. Nor will I make any difference of persons in conferring rewards, offices or 
favors, for or in respect to religion, but merely as I shall find tlum faithful and well- 
deserving, endowed with moral virtues and .abilities. My aim shall be public unity, 
and if any other officer or person molest any person professing to believe in Jesus 

Christ, in respect of his religion, I will protect any person so molested, and will 

any person as shall molest any other person to be punished." 

The most important clause of the oath, and of the deepest historic 
significance, couched in the words "and in particular no Roman 
CaihoUc," is left out altogether by Chalmers. But this is not the 
worst deception of Chalmers' version of the matter. He represents 
this as the oath taken by the Governor and Council, between the 
years lfi37 and 1657. This statement gives the ini])ression that 
this oath was first taken in 1637, and always afterwards when such 
oaths were administered, until 1657. True, this oath was adminis- 
tered between these years, but never until 1648, never until the 



30 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

Protestant Stone was made Governor, Protestant Councillors and a 
Protestant Secretary of State filled the offices and administered the 
affairs of the. colony, and a Protestant population and Legislature 
were about to shape the future legislation of the colony. 

Leonard Calvert became the Governor of the colony in 1634. 
Dr. Allen says, '^ History records no oath of office which he took, 
until the one ordered by the Maryland Assembly of 1638, which is 
this": 

" I do swear, that while I am a member of this province, I will bear true faith to 
the Right Honorable Cecilius, Lord Proprietary of this province, and his heirs — 
saving my allegiance to the Crowu of England — and the said province and him and 
them, and his and their due rights and jurisdictions, and all and every of them 
will aid, defend and maintain to the utmost of my power, the peace and welfare of 
the people I will ever procure, as far as I may, and to none will I delay or deny 
right, but equal justice will administer in all things, to my best skill, according to 
the laws of this province, so help me God." 

This oath Governor Calvert took March 20, 1638. There is no 
trace of any other. During his absence in England in 1643 and 
1644, Mr. Brent acted as temporary Governor. The oath which he 
took may be ibnnd in 2 Bozman 254. It is in substance the same 
as that above to Calvert, but nothing like that of Stone. The pre- 
vious oaths were imposed by the Maryland Assembly. The oath of 
Stone was imposed by Lord Baltimore himself. Dr. Allen says : 

"Now then, does this oath propose toleration as now understood to all religious 
sects and denominations of Christisins, conscientiously differing from each other? No 
such thing is specified. The word toleration is not in it, butp/'of^ci is in it. Tiie 
Governor is made to swear, 'I will apply my power and authority to relieve and pro- 
tect any person so molested.' Protection was the idea of that daj% not toleration :. 
tliat was of after growth. Nor was it the object of the oath to grant toleration." 

Yielding to the ibrce of circumstances, the complete ascendancy 
of the English Parliament, the danger of losing his colonial gov- 
ernment, if not possessions, and consideiing the large proportion of 
Protestants in his province. Lord Baltimore found it advisable to 
appoint a Protestant Governor, a Protestant Secretary of State, and 
one-lialfof the other members of the Council, Protestants. And 
wliat clearly is the main object of this oath to be taken by this 
Protestant Governor? Not simply to protect Episcopalians, Presby- 
terians and Puritans. For the two latter the government at home 
would certainly see to, and the officers now appointed also. It was 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 31 

that this Governor should not molest, trouble or discountenance any 
person whatsoever, in the said province, professing to believe in 
Jesus Christ, in particular no Roman Catholic; the very thing 
Chalmers left out. 

A contemporary and friend of Lord Baltimore, Langford, already 
quoted, says, in his pamphlet of 1655, that — 

" Lord Bcaltimore appointed this oath to be taken by the aforesaid officers, when he 
made Captain Stone, Governor ; Mr. Tiiomas Hatton, Secretary ; and otliers of hip 
Council there; who, being of a different judgment in religion from himself, his Lord- 
ship thought it but reasonable and fit, that as he did oblige the Governor by oath 
not to disturb any there who did believe in Jesus Christ, so to express the Roman 
Catholics in particular, who were of his own judgment in matters of religion." 

Beyond all question, the oath was imposed to protect Roman 
Catholics, and not to give toleration to Protestants. It was a wise 
and good thing, but was never done before, and was now done 
under the pressure of necessity and for self-preservation. It was 
extorted, and not a free act of grace and favor to others. It was an 
unavoidable necessity of Lord Baltimore's position, when strug- 
gling against difficulties endangering the loss of all his interest in 
the Maryland colony. 

The Legislature met the next year, 1649, the first under 
Governor Stone's administration. This Assembly passed the famous 
"Act concerning Religion." There has been much false statement 
concerning the origin and meaning of this piece of legislation, and a 
great deal of eulogium upon the Roman Catholic Proprietor and 
Legislature for such a wise and generous policy. We have alread}^ 
seen that Lord Baltimore was in a position compelling" him to 
appoint a Protestant Governor, Secretary of State and majority of 
the Council, and that the oatli to Colonel Stone, which appears so 
broad and liberal to all Christians, was to insure protection to 
Roman Catholics from molestation on the score of their religion. 
The state of things which made that oath a necessity of his position 
continued and was intensified. The Protestant population of the 
colony was already in the ascendant; the Puritan government of 
Cromwell had the mastery of all England. Lifluenced by all these 
considerations, the Lord Proprietor would gladly suggest of him- 
self such legislation, or accept it when enacted, as looked to the 
results contemplated by the appointment of Stone, and his oath of 
office. There has been much discussion about the complexion of 



32 MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

the Legislature, whether the majority of its members were Roman 
Catholic or Protestant. Bozraan says: " There are strong grounds 
to believe that the majority were Protestants, if not Protestants of 
the Puritanic order." We know that the Grovernor, Secretary of 
State and the majority of the Council were Protestants. Bozman 
adds — 

" There are strong reasons for supposing that the majority of the burgesses were 
Protestants, as they certainly were tlie next year, 1650." 

There is other testimony, from contemporary sources, friendly to 
Lord Baltimore^ which would seem to be quite explicit. The 
Maryland Assembly of the year 1648 wrote a letter to Lord Balti- 
more, describing the depressed and wretched condition of the colony 
as it emerged from the Ingle rebellion, at the return of Grovernor 
Calvert from Virginia. They say : 

" Most of your Lordship's friends here were despoiled of their whole estate, and 
sent away as banished persons out of the province. Tliose few that remained were 
plundered." 

They also add, that the first Assembly after Governor Calvert's 
return — 

" two or three only excepted, it consisted of that rebelled party, and Governor Cal- 
vert's professed enemies." 

To this Protestant ascendancy, already established, is added, two 
years later, five hundred Puritan Protestants, and we see at once 
that the colony is Protestant beyond question. Thus the boasted 
"Act of Toleration " proves to have been the result of Protestant in- 
fluence, and most likely an act of Protestant legislation, and 
altogether necessary to the maintenance of Lord Baltimore's position 
and rights as proprietor of the colony. 

The remarks of Bozman, as to this piece of legislation, are very 
just. Alluding to Chalmers' statement on the subject, that this 
Legislature was composed chiefly of Roman Catholics, Bozman says : 

" The error (as it appears to me) of a learned annalist, when he says, in his encomium 
of this act, that this Assembly of 1649 was ' composed chiefly of Roman Catholics,' has 
propagated the opinion, generally adopted, that this act of religious toleration pro- 
ceeded from a Roman Catholic government. An opinion certainly incorrect, as to 
those who now administered the Maryland government, since unquestionably the 
Governor and most of the Council were Protestants, (of the old Church of England 



MARYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 33 

perhaps,) and in all probability a majority of the Assembly were so, with a few Puri- 
tans mixed up with them. The act of Assembly may be said, indeed, to have been 
the political measure of a Roman Catholic nobleman, and so far the Roman Catholics 
are entitled to all the credit which mny accrue to them from this measure of an in- 
dividual of their sect." 

He adds : 

"But without the slightest endeavor to detract from the personal merit of Cecilius 
Calvert, Lord Baltimore, it may be safely maintained, that the history of affairs 
throughout the British Empire in Europe, at this time, clearly demonstrates that this 
measure of general religious toleration, now adopted by his Lordship, flowed rather 
from a prudent policy, than any personal disposition to a general religious toleration." 

This supposition is confirmed by the fact that no word or act of 
Lord Baltimore, during; the earlier years of his proprietorship, looked 
in that direction. Bozman says further : 

"The Government of Virginia was now also ferreting out from their hiding-places 
all the Puritans who lurked in that ancient dominion. Maryland, unfortunately for 
his Lordship, became an asylum for most of them. The inhabitants of this province 
now formed a heterodox mixtureof almost every Christian sect. To keep peace among 
them, a general toleration was obviously the only prudential measure to be adopted." 

To confirm this judgment of Bozman, we need hut look at the 
terms of the 3d Section of the Article on Religion : 

" Whosoever shall, in a reproachful way, call any one an Heretic, Schismatic, Idol- 
ater, Puritan, Presbyterian, Independent, Popish Priest, Jesuit, Jesuited Papist, 
Lutheran, Anabaptist, Brownist, Anliuomian, Barrovvist, Roundliead, Separatist, or 
any otlier name or term, shall forfeit £10 sterling, or if not able, shall be publicly 
whipped and imprisoned till the party offended be satisfied, by the offender asking 
forgiveness publicly." 

These terms all show the presence and temper of a 2:)reponder- 
ating Puritanism. 

We need not now follow the development of the colony farther. 
We have reached the point in its history in which this vital question 
inheres. New emigrants came, and the country grew. New counties 
were formed and new settlements made ; but the Protestant popula- 
tion was always many times more than the Roman Catholic. The 
Roman Catholic historian, McSherry, says that — 

"at this time, and even forty three years later, the Roman Catholics were the 
majorily in Maryland." 
5 



34 MAEYLAND NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC COLONY. 

Against this we have only to put Lord Baltimore's own testimony. 
In 1676 he was before the Court of Privy Council, and made a state- 
ment in writing, still extant, that — 

" the population of the colony was 20,000, of whom three-fourths were Presbyterians, 
Independents and Quakers" (2 Anderson, 613). 

In 1686, what is known in history as the Protestant Revolution 
displaced Lord Baltimore from his proprietary rights ; and in the 
year 1692, the population then being 25,000, the Assembly of 
Maryland passed an act making the Church of England the estab- 
lished church. This fact shows that the Church of England had 
the majority over all in the Legislature. This continued to be the 
religious status of the colony, under the law, until the time of the 
Revolution. In 1697 a report was made by the county sheriffs to 
the Governor, by order, of the state of religion, the number of 
churches and ministers in each county. The report of the Governor 
to the Bishop of London, as made up from these items, is still 
extant in the archives of Maryland, and in those of the Bishop, and 
shows nine teachers and ministers of the Roman Catholic, Presby- 
terian and Quakers, and twenty places of worstiip, not of the Church 
of England, while that church had eighteen ministers and twenty- 
five places of worship. 

But we will close. Much more testimony might be adduced, all 
concurring with what we have brought forward. More is not 
needed to prove that Maryland was never Catholic Maryland, in 
the sense that is claimed for her — perverted school histories, and 
interested politicians, to the contrary notwithstanding. The docu- 
ments quoted cover one hundred and thirty years — documents 
never impeached, never contradicted, all telling the same story. 



.^ 



Early Religious History 
of Maryland. 



Maryland not a Roman Catholic Colony 

Religious Toleration not an Act of R(jman 
Catholic Legislation. 



Thk Substance of a Lecture delivered before the Guild of 
"All Saints Church," Baltimore, 

BY IHE 

REV. B. F. BROWN, 

A ltd Vnblishcd by Request, 



li A L r 1 M O R E : 

I\NES'& CO., book printers. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 368 150 el 




"""I mi mi ill 
01 



Z'^'r^^^O^GRESS 




0^4 368 150 6 



Hollinger 



